About this Show

[untitled]

NETWORK

DURATION
00:30:00

RATING

SCANNED IN
San Francisco, CA, USA

SOURCE
Comcast Cable

TUNER
Channel 89 (615 MHz)

VIDEO CODEC
mpeg2video

AUDIO CODEC
ac3

PIXEL WIDTH
528

PIXEL HEIGHT
480

TOPIC FREQUENCY

Us 5, Avalos 5, Piers 3, The City 3, Jennifer 3, Oakland 3, Kim 2, Karl Jones 2, The Port 2, America 2, Huey Lu 1, Kym 1, Nbc 1, Frank Sinatra 1, The Hp Pavillion 1, Peers 1, Gam 1, Lookinging 1, Warriors 1, At&t 1,
Borrow a DVD
of this show
  SFGTV    [untitled]  

    November 24, 2012
    3:30 - 4:00am PST  

3:30am
stronger narrative of what qualifies, then a mechanism for understanding and approving what is a qualified expenditure and not. this is something we have given a lot of thought to. we went through the same exercise and learned a lot and expect we will have a tight process for categorizing and improving what is a reimbursable cost. >> i imagine if it is possible to establish this process that would be the goal. >> that is the goal, yes. >> supervisor kim? >> thank you. i was hoping through the chair that i do want to recognize the chair of pier 30, 32 citizen advisory committee is here. it would be okay with the port and city if she could speak as well. >> just let me finish my presentation. >> yes. >> i would like to ask monique to speak and if
3:31am
there are other parties representative, we can do that. ms. moyer. >> thank you. good afternoon, supervisors. thank you for allowing me to have a few minutes to speak. there is a broad group waiting a long time. i'm anxious to hear from them as well. i don't have a lot i want to share. i think it is instrmental to look at appears 30 and 32 for a second. they were built as two separate piers in 1914. they will mark 100 next year. they were joined in 1952 when we moved from rail to trucking. this was filled in in 1914 to provide a rail yard to support piers 30, 32, 26 and 28. that is where the city had the sugar import section. we were a big importer of sugar. those were envisioned and pioneered to be built with reinforced concrete to make them fireproof. ironically in 1984 the
3:32am
buildings on top of the piers burnt down but pier itself survived. in 1987 there was a proposal for development on 30, 32. by my count this is the sixth proposal to do some sort of significant development on peers 30 and 32. that is completely unique to this site, unlike no other project the port has done. as the port director, something that gives me great pause. we spent a lot of time as you brought up this morning supervisor avalos during the america's cup event authority lookinging at that pier in more detail and we determined there is an expensive proposition to remove, let alone try to rehabilitate it. it is sitting pier for us. as mentioned naturally deep berth. that is the whole reason the port exists on the
3:33am
western side is because we have naturally deep berths and can take advantage of that for the benefit so it is important to us. next door we are building the brandon street war f, requiring removal of peer 36, also row inforced and the building of a new park. the entire cost is 32 million. when i think about this, it will achieve something since 1987, repair a blighted part and put it into economic use. two, removes significant liability for the port. we are investing little money with respect to commitments on the america's cup to ensure the
3:34am
promenade and pier remain attached in event of seismic event. we will get another berth we desperately need at a cost we currently cannot afford. it is clear from our projections that will go away without investment in future as near as possible, ten years. we are making investment in northern waterfront of almost a hundred million to keep the business in san francisco. in doing so we are attracting business. that is important. it is to host fleet week. ships are getting bigger and bigger. when working with piers built in 1914 they weren't built for these types of ships. 30, 32 affords us that advantage. we are getting half million square feet. we are building a park for 54,000 feet at cost of 32 million, very similar to
3:35am
what is at piers 3032. this would allow us to get half million square feet of landscaped parkland plus additional open space, plus all the economic benefits in form of fiscal feasibility report. we don't have that balance sheet in our wildest dreams to invest 120 million to accomplish those goals. it will take a big idea. that was my exact testimony. it will take a big idea with lots of benefits. as i was listening to ms. mathis's presentation, i was thinking this will hurt partners in oakland. it is challenging for all of us, but one i'm hoping we can take advantage of of the waterfront and keep this as economically viable
3:36am
as possible. those are the thoughts. i'm happy to take questions if you have them. >> thank you. supervisor kim, did you have a question? thank you. why don't we go to the budget analyst report. mr. rose. if i can ask you to go to the poem. >> madam chair, members of the committee, we have a conclusion and report on page 18 where we state the proposed development appears 3032 and seawall lot 10, including rehabilitation of the property at pier 30, 32, multipurpose arena for golden state warrior games and events. public open space. maritime use, retail and
3:37am
related parking. development on seawall lot 330 of residential hotel and retail use and accessory parking. we provide estimated fiscal impacts including one-time benefits of the city up to 53.8 million. direct ongoing annual financial benefits between 9.8 million and slightly over ten million. undetermined indirect benefits from grocery receipts tax revenue up to 120 million as you have heard capped in private expenditures, rehabilitation of 3032, reimbursement by port of those private construction expenditures. for use of 66 years of credits for pier 3032, valued at 1,970,000 per year. you also heard when i talked about 120 million
3:38am
that does include 13% return to gsw on the reimbursement of construction costs, non reimbursement construction costs. transfer of seawall lot 330 from port of gsw bay and 34 million and four years of general fund property tax revenues, used to repay a 60 million ifd bond. no new ongoing maintenance cost for the port. undetermined maintenance costs for which funding options are explored by the office of economic and workforce development, port and gsw. so based on those criteria the budget and legislative analyst finds the proposed development to be fiscally feasible under the code and therefore we recommend approval of this proposed
3:39am
resolution before you. in accordance of the codes, chapter 29, finding of feasibility as you know that the project merits evaluation and review. we will evaluation and make further recommendations on this project to the board of supervisors when the port submits the term sheet to the board which will contain project details. i would also note on page 18 we state for purposes of the analysis of the fiscal impacts of the proposed development, gsw assumed 205 events per year, including 50 warrior games at proposed multiuse arena with total of attendance of 2 million annually. that is shown in table three on page 19 of our report. this report that economic
3:40am
viability of proposed arena depends on hosting a variety of events in addition to golden state warrior games. we would be happy by to respond to questions the committee might have. >> thank you. are there any questions to the budget analyst at this time? if not -- just to jennifer, are there any other departments planning to speak? no, okay. we will opening for public comment soon. before we do that i did want to allow for the chair of the pier 3032 cac speak, katy ladell. because you are not a member of the san francisco staff you are required to be under public comment period so two minutes is the time we do have. i allow you to speak up to two minutes. of course if you can i think representing what entire cac's perspective with, where there is
3:41am
distinction and view. also share that. >> thank you. thank you supervisor kim for giving me this opportunity to talk to you. some of us on the cac sent all of you an e-mail this morning asking for a 30 to 60 day extension on the resolution for the feasibility fiscal feasibility study. our main concern and our main request at this point is that we would like to slow this process down. things are going so quickly. i have to tell you, we the cac members have not had a chance to talk. the purpose of the cac is we are representing the people who live in our neighborhoods. we need to be able to have a conversation so we can decide what our views are and discuss the issues because we are supposed to evaluate and comment and
3:42am
offer options. but we the cac members have not had a chance to talk. we have had three meetings. those are all mainly information done. presentations, which are very valuable that we have not had the chance to chat. i don't know all of my cac members. so that is what we are asking, is to slow this process down. we need time to be able to discuss the issues, as we are supposed to. also speaking personally and not to the cac, i am something who lives over in that neighborhood. and the neighborhood has not really been heard. we have heard all the pro's but some of us are very concerned so thank you very much. >> thank you very much. a quick question. in terms of the letter we did see it come through that was not a formal action taken by cac. sounds like a number of members of the cac -- not
3:43am
all had concerns and sent that letter. >> that's correct. >> supervisor avalos. >> thank you. a quick question for probably jennifer matz or -- not sure. jennifer is probably best to answer it. >> jennifer. >> it is -- just a quick question. one of the discussions going forward about this project is looking at projections for events. warrior's games, concerts, family events that are going on. the proposal is 205 events each year. i'm wondering how realistic that is. we are not saying -- you know, there are any venues around the bay area or the country that actually have this many combination of sports and other events.
3:44am
has there been like -- you know, when vegas first started they signed a contract with allegedly frank sinatra and dean martin to actually bring. we have acts set up for the warriors? >> i can let rick speak directly to what the warriors have been doing in order to talk to event promoters. what i think is important to note is that 205 events runs the gam mot of the different size of shows. from as small as 4,000 to 5,000 to as large as full capacity for basketball games. when you look around the country at similar types of multiuse venues, whether it is the boston garden, whatever that is called or united center in chicago, the hp pavillion in san jose or the current or goal arena in oakland, there is
3:45am
a wide variety in the number per year really ranging -- these are once anchored by sports teams really between about 100 and 250, depending on the venue. i think the notion is there are -- part is whether or not your regional area has enough capacity to maintain a multiday -- events that would happen recurrently over a lot of days or whether your market is such that a show might only come to town for a few days. depending on the market in some ways depends on the number of events. i can let rick speak about this. >> just a question in the context of the events. is that really a major consideration for this project being successful in years to come? if it is 25 events what
3:46am
does that -- >> thank you for the question. that is a realistic number and facility of this size and budget we are talking about to perform, that is not only a goal but something we will try to achieve. there are arenas that have sittingly larger numbers but that is driven by the fact they have more than one primary major league tenant. for example a number of teams. madison square garden has a national and nbc, which add another 50 dates. they are at that 300 level. we don't anticipate getting close to 300 but think 200 is realistic. to point out one thing, the there is quite a variety. we are talking about an arena we are planning to make smaller than the current we are playing in
3:47am
oakland by about 1,500 feet. the capacity of 17,500, about 40% the size of every night is sell-out crowd at at&t park for perspective. the majority will not play to a full house because smaller house like family shows and smaller concerts that today don't have a home to play in san francisco. that answer your question? >> so you have expectations that having events will consist it isn'tly yield a certain amount of viability and profitability. 205, if you are less than that, how critical to your success? >> well, that isn't a magic number. depends on the mix that end up taking place but it is a goal to be similar.
3:48am
in that range. i think it is probably realistic goal for a facility site. we envision something good. the three in the underis madison square garden, staples and new arena pier 32. we have in answer to another part of the question you asked earlier we are in conversations with the major concert and promotion companies to date and have been on an ongoing basis and are extremely happy but the local promoters. we met with several this week. we envisioned the warrior's management not being, collusive to any promotion company. we want to entertain acts that are represent bid a
3:49am
variety of promoters, including local. >> great, thank you. that is all the questions with the budget analyst. what led to my question around the events, number of events that are being planned on yearly basis for the new stadium, do you see 205, that number as being critical about -- anything related to financial feasibility or viability of the project? madam chair, members of the committee, supervisor avalos, i mentioned that 205 because yes that was part of the fiscal feasibility analysis. the revenues were based on that 205. as i stated, ms. match emphasized in addition the
3:50am
50 warrior games there must be a number of theser events in order to make this whole project fiscally feasible. our information is that the approximately 200 is necessary, at least based on the data we have received to date. again, as i mentioned to you, when we received the term sheet and see all the details behind this project, we will evaluate and report. our only statement, our recommendation is that based on the data provided, including this 205 number, we believe this project is fiscally feasible. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> can i add up with thing? it is inextrick bli linked the numbers of revenue generated by the city are
3:51am
linked to the totality of uses at arena. but the warriors won't be able to finance and won't have any desire to build an arena that is not -- that does not make economic sense for them. the ability -- their willingness to build an arena is dependent on having that arena be a viable economic engine in order to recoup the billion dollars that it is going to cost to build that facility. so i think obviously we will be providing more detailed information to the budget analyst and to the decision-makers and cf ac in months to come. the reinforcing mechanism, the warrior also not invest a billion in something that isn't going to yield the economic activity that justifis that. >> thank you. supervisor kym? >> i want to ask you to come up again. given kind of a lot of
3:52am
concerns i raised in the neighborhood around the speed which this process is going, i get it with the fiscal feasibility. this initiates the process. the board is asking if this is fiscally feasible. the substantive part is with the term sheet and substantive eir. i'm hoping to get a commitment from city on ensuring we don't hold scoping meetings during holidays and move to mid-january to make sure we adequately hear through the input. if the city would also be okay with amendments to the resolution ensuring the cac would hear and review the term sheet prior to the board budget committee meetings. >> since you mentioned, during my presentation, the concept of moving the eir scoping meeting to mid-january, had an opportunity to talk to planning department and warriors, we can do that.
3:53am
rather than having two meetings, one before and one soon thereafter the new year, we can move and have a scoping meeting in mid-january and get beyond the holidays. that is something that is achievable and we will do. in addition, i would be happy by to have you amend the resolution to include whatever language protection cac wants in order to ensure they get to review, comment on, opine, report to you out on, participate in report out to you in a hearing on the term sheet. >> thank you. i appreciate that. i certainly want to ensure we respect the voice of cac, which we have created. i know the cac has had ample opportunity to hear but we should have allowed time for them to respond and have a dialogue so they can actually advise the board of supervisors, mayor and port on their thoughts regarding the fiscal
3:54am
feasibility. i wish we at least personally had been able to think about this a couple weeks ago. i'm hearing this yesterday completely agreed but i know we set this date for a while now. i think around the substantive portion s of the process, whether it is the eir and term sheet and of course any type of zoning approvals that we absolutely have to ensure the cac is given ample time to disz and respond to city in terms of their perspective and principals they like to guide this project. i appreciate that commitment, thank you. >> thank you. if there are no questions open the item up for public comment. i'm going to be calling from stack of speak of speaker cards. when you hear your name line up against the wall. each person will be given two minutes. for those who have finished speaking if i ask you to perhaps leave the room and go to overflow to allow for
3:55am
another members of the public to come in and speak, that would be wonderful. why don't we begin. here are the namesly be calling. karl jones. huey lu. rachel w, manual hernandez, eddie james, karen woods, ron miguel, jeffrey leibowitz. if you hear your name line up. i will ask the first speaker to come up. >> hello, good afternoon. karl jones come on behalf of seasoned ticket holders for the golden state warriors. we question that you look at the project and get it going. also a retired union man so definitely looking forward to it being built and getting jobs to union
3:56am
families in san francisco. also we need to have the project done so if everybody has been following the warriors the time this project is done we will be raising a world championship banner. let's get it done. >> next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. i want to speak behalf of chinese citizen alliance. and want to keep it short. so i live in san francisco for many years. i love this city. it think it is important for san francisco to have its team. i heard golden state warriors was once played in san francisco. i think it is time to bring them back home. in addition, i think it is a good idea to use the portland because otherwise it would be unused.
3:57am
finally good for small business and opportunities for collecting tax revenue. therefore i really hope we can move forward with this project. thank you. please hold the microphone to you. >> supervisors, may i ask -- have permission to be her interpreter. >> absolutely. >> she speaks in chinese. >> we will have two minutes for conversation and two minutes for the interpretation. >> sure. >> my name is rachel.
3:58am
i'm speaking to support the arena project. i believe it is good to have open space so people can exercise t'ai chi and a place for seniors to rest in the plaza and good for them to visit. without this project there will be no use of the space so i believe it is important for the city to do. i hope you will support moving this process forward. thank you very much. >> thank you. >> good afternoon, supervisors. former vice chair of rin con cac, current member of
3:59am
38th briept street across from 30, 32. i have been involved with development on 30, 32 for probably the last ten years. big booster for the cruise terminal. first i want to thank supervisor avalos, supervisor chu and supervisor kim for their thoughtful comments. i think they are important. i think you have expressed what the cac was trying to express. i want to echo supervisor avalos's comments about the comments at 105 feet. i expect this project will ask for a variance, a favor from the city. favors come with a price. i think the economic driver is going to be what they build on seawall lot 330, including what they build on the pier. i want to say one other thing, i was taken by comments of the executive director of the port, monique. sac